I’ve been out of the country for a few weeks and it’s taking me some time to catch up. However, a few thing have caught my attention today:
CitizenWells is reporting the WHY initiative is moving along:
From Dean Haskins of Restore the Constitutional Republic:
“There once existed a “fringe movement” comprised of people who were publicly ridiculed for their specific and firmly held conviction—a conviction that ran counter to the generally held beliefs of their time. As staunchly as they embraced what they knew to be truth, it seemed no less than futility trying to sway the vast majority to accept, or even consider, that knowledge. The institutions that controlled the dissemination of public information condemned these “truth bearers” as unworthy of the slightest civility. It even became dangerous to attempt to convince the masses that these contentions were, in fact, truth—so dangerous that one of the group’s leaders was eventually imprisoned for openly sharing his viewpoint, and then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his years.
Is this how history will recall us—the “birthers” of the early 21 century? If it is, then it will likely be part of the account describing America’s demise. This portrayal certainly looks accurate regarding what we’ve experienced, except for the leader’s imprisonment. But, the “leader” to whom I am referring was Galileo Galilei, and the fringe movement of his day was the heliocentrists—those who believed the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around. Just because society considers beliefs that run counter to the understandings of the gullible masses to be “fringe” or “conspiracy theories,” doesn’t mean that those beliefs are not true. The earth continues to orbit the sun.
There is a group of people, who rely on us to retain their jobs, who have still not provided truthful, informed answers to our questions about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be president—the members of Congress. While a very nasty bug has kept me pretty silent for more than a couple weeks, I feel I have now recovered enough to once again remember just how angry it makes me that these folks have arrogantly dismissed us as lunatics—and they are supposed to be working FOR us!
So, The WHY Initiative is now being implemented in full force. Citizen Wells and I finalized it today, and we are ready to begin a new barrage of inquiries into the offices of our elected officials in Congress…Continue Reading
I see Larry Sinclair’s new book, Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder, is listed on Barnes and Noble’s website. Well done Mr. Sinclair!
From Natural Born Citizen comes an excellent analysis of the “Quo Warranto” remedy that has historically been granted to the state to remove usurpers such as Obama. The analysis is in 3 parts and is very interesting:
Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.
This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility. The brief will be sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to the issues contained herein…Continue Reading
The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .
Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper. And if that’s true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible…Continue Reading
The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.
1. SCOTUS IS THE WRONG VENUE TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
The District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III states:
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Emphasis added.)
The quo warranto statute allows a jury trial on “issues of fact”. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is an issue of fact. Whoever institutes a proceeding pursuant to the statute may request a jury trial and one must be granted. The judge could not refuse.
But if the case is brought to SCOTUS before it’s brought to the District Court of the District of Columbia, and if SCOTUS were to accept the case, you’re never going to have a jury trial.
Any quo warranto proceeding should go before the DC District Court as follows:
a. a determination would have to be made, as a matter of fact, as to whether Obama was born in the US/Hawaii.
b. if the jury’s verdict is that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, then the legal question is easy: he’s not a natural born citizen. please take note that the issue wouldn’t be whether the online COLB is genuine, the issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii and any COLB or other document would only be considered as a piece of evidence for the jury to consider.
c. if the jury’s verdict is that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the next issue is a more complex judicial question. the District Court would have to make a legal determination as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN….Continue Reading
Lastly, there appears to be a drive at Dr. Orly Taitz’s site to contact Attorney General Eric Holder and/or US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor to urging them to uphold their duties.
Well, that’s it for now. Zach